February 16, 2012

Now, he qualifies his religious views by saying he doesn’t vote against contraception “because it’s not the taking of a human life” (in other contexts he has emphasized that as a legal matter he has no problem with contraception). But how does that square with his professed belief that a candidate’s values are essential to understanding and predicting his behavior? Perhaps that’s an abortion-only rule.

Watch the video at the link. Santorum says:

"I vote and have supported birth control because it is not the taking of a human life. But I’m not a believer in birth control and — artificial birth control — again, I think it goes down the line of being able to do whatever you want to do without having the responsibility that comes with that.... I think it breaks that … this is from a personal point of view. From a governmental point of view, I support Title 10 (I guess it is) and have voted for contraception — although I don’t think it works. I think it’s harmful to women. I think it’s harmful to our society to have a society that says that sex outside of marriage is something that should be encouraged or tolerated, particularly among the young. And I think it has it has — and we’ve seen — very, very harmful long-term consequences to a society. So, birth control — to me — enables that and I don’t think it’s a healthy thing for our country.”

I'd like to see the whole transcript — and I will check his 2005 book, which I presume he was talking about. It's pretty clear just from that quote that he wasn't saying what he would do with governmental power. He was speaking "from a personal point of view," expressing the opinion something that people are now free to do isn't good for them and isn't good for society. It's a separate question whether he would deny us this freedom. He would deny us the freedom to have abortions, presumably, because that is "the taking of a human life" and thus important to him "from a governmental point of view."

Should voters worry about what Santorum might do with his personal beliefs if he gets into power? Note that the issue today isn't about banning birth control. It's about subsidies. What behavior are we incentivizing with government spending? The Obama administration wants to nudge people into using birth control, on the theory that's good policy. Santorum represents the opposite policy position, and not merely because he wants much less government spending. From his book ("It Takes a Family"):

[I]n this country, we continue to pour millions more dollars into comprehensive sex ed, which “protects” against the “effects” of unhealthy behavior, rather than promoting virtue, which will lead to healthy behavior. In 2002, the federal and state governments spent an estimated $1.73 billion on a wide variety of contraception promotion and pregnancy prevention programs. More than a third of that money—$653 million—was spent specifically to fund contraceptive programs for teens. In contrast, programs teaching teens to abstain from sexual activity received only an estimated $144.1 million in 2002. Overall, the government spent 12 dollars to promote contraception for every dollar spent to encourage abstinence. When I have attempted to increase abstinence funding at the expense of contraceptive funding, I have been scolded for “trying to impose religious values on children.” As if telling children to go ahead and have sex all they want as long as they use a condom is not a value statement. It may not be held by many formal religions, but it is certainly held by the materialist philosophy of the left that defends free-sex-and-condoms with religious zeal. If you ever wondered what moral message was being delivered to your children from Uncle Sam—or should I say Uncle Sigmund?—now you know.

Santorum goes on to criticize the Supreme Court for finding a constitutional right to use contraception (even though, he says, if he'd been a legislator, he wouldn't have voted for the law).

The dissenting justices [in Griswold v. Connecticut] mocked the reasoning of the majority, which in some cases based itself not on the Constitution's text, but rather on the “traditions and [collective] conscience of our people.” How, asked the dissenters, could the Court know the conscience of the people better than legislators? Did not such reliance lead only to the substitution of judges' “personal and private notions” for the decisions of legislatures?...

Santorum's not running for judge, and the Justice Black approach leaves these things to the political branches of government. So, if Black was right, and personal views are going to affect decisions, then we can't get away from the reality that Santorum's personal views will affect his decisionmaking — including whom he will appoint to the Supreme Court, which has the power to reshape our due process rights, perhaps giving a lot more leeway to the political branches of government where Santorum's personal views will affect decisionmaking.

308 comments:

The only reason anyone can/should worry at all about Santorum's actions as a President would be because liberals said/did nothing to stop President Obama's numerous overreaches against liberty.

Liberals seem to be incapable of understanding consequences. They think when they grab power, they will be the only ones ever allowed to use that power.

Of course, the NYTimes and their liberal news subordinates certainly provide rhetorical cocooning for the misapprehension.

But the wailing and gnashing of teeth by liberals will be deafening when the cascading preferences reveal themselves in the vote returns this November. I think the current mainstream view of liberals will be marginalized within another 20 years. It will drop down the memory hole, just like every other liberal failure, but modern liberal thought is completely unsustainable. The only reason it has lasted this long is the echo chamber created by the behind-the-scenes work by groups like journolist, Media Matters, et al.

Imagine, Rick Santorum is elected president and becomes the reincarnation of Cotton Mather, just as Nancy Pelosi probably fears as she lays her coiffed head on her high-threadcount pillows every night. Imagine further that instead of repealing Obamacare, the former GOP senator from Pennsylvania decided to keep this law in place and modify it along much more traditionalist, even puritanical, lines.

Santorumcare could involve — say — a federally mandated, five-day waiting period before women could have abortions. This parallels the original five-day interlude that potential firearms buyers faced under the Brady Law. How could the Left object to that?

How about a requirement that every American who receives free condoms from any federally subsidized health center first must receive 30 minutes of mandatory abstinence counseling?

And of course the left would go crazy, but such actions are clearly now within the President's power.

[I]n this country, we continue to pour millions more dollars into comprehensive sex ed, which “protects” against the “effects” of unhealthy behavior, rather than promoting virtue, which will lead to healthy behavior.

ie. we are treating the symptoms rather than the disease.

Overall, the government spent 12 dollars to promote contraception for every dollar spent to encourage abstinence.

So he wants to adjust that ratio.

When I have attempted to increase abstinence funding at the expense of contraceptive funding, I have been scolded for “trying to impose religious values on children.”

Abstinence is a moral value, not a religious one. Else, we might as well say that going after murderers is "trying to impose religious values"

Oh, and another point, the “right to privacy” the Supreme Court claimed to have found in Griswold vs Connecticut and Roe vs Wade will lead to thousands of businesses keeping information on the sexual and reproductive behaviors of their employees.

Of course a Justice (and any individual in any power position) will use their personal belief system in the process of making decisions.

What Santorum objected to, and I agree with, is when a Justice elevates the priorities of their own belief system above precedent, law, and Constitution, in order to justify an outcome that isn't supported by current precedent, law, and the US Constitution.

And let's get one thing out of the way:Atheism and secular humanism are belief systems, equal to and equivalent to any religious belief system. It is a dishonest and hypocritical distortion of reality to elevate a lack of belief in any God over belief in a god as somehow more objective.

But I suspect most atheist liberals won't get that. The end always justifies their delusions of superiority.

All I can say is that Obama's campaign/administration (there is no difference) is either genius or extremely lucky. How did the contraception hoopla come to be just as Santorum started to surge? Coincidence, I don't think so. I have always said that Santorum is scary. It is highly disappointing that the Republicans can do so poorly in presenting their best talent against Obama.

I'm just thinking the country is in serious trouble, the people are expecting real focus on the economy, jobs, regulations crippling business, the threat gas will be up to 4.50 a gallon by Memorial Day, groceries going up 30%, another trillion in debt, gold going to 2,000 an ounce, another major war brewing we may get sucked into, chaos inside Mexico, Europe near fiscal collapse, dangerous events abroad.....

And you have Republicans talking contraception as a problem, need for anti-gay crusades, new trillion-dollar moon colonies. How great a candidate is because he loves his dying daughter and is a religious zealot. How great it would be to magically take us back 30 years to the shining America of the 1980s or even better, to Barry Goldwater's America of 1964.Romney is still flat.And everytime you start to like Ron Paul because he says something that makes total sense he follows it up with something lunatic.

If you are not opposed to the use of contraception, I think this has to at least raise some questions about how a Santorum administration will approach contraception. Would all, some, or no subsidies be allowed? What's the scope of "federal subsidy"?

That doesn't mean Santorum might not still be the right candidate for the nomination. But these are legitimate questions.

Saint-orum is actually talking a pro marriage agenda and he sets the goal as a man and a woman becoming one in a union that strengthens them to overcome the challenges of life, such as raising children.

"...judges — when they talk about the meaning of "liberty" in the Due Process Clause — say that they are finding a "principle of justice... rooted in the traditions and conscience of our people." Justice Black simply didn't think judges could do that."

It's interesting that you could see this trend in jurisprudence coming since at least the 1980s. As I remember, that's approximately when Ronald Dworkin popularized this view that judges reach correct ruling by applying what they consider to be the most moral/"just" interpretation of the law that is "reasonably" consistent with case law. Recently you even saw Judge Posner talking this way.

The most "moral" interpretation that is "reasonably" consistent with case law? That door is big enough to drive a truck through.

@Cedarford,The left-leaning news media is keeping the Overton Window centered squarely on the topics that help Obama most, that's why.

But remember, McCain/Palin actually had a commanding lead over Obama at one point.

Once the GOP has a nominee, and the money/effort goes into highlighting Obama's failures, plus once the independents start thinking about politics again (as they usually do in Sept of POTUS election years) and start comparing the past 4 years to the 4 years before that, the preference cascade will start.

The media will try to plug all the leaks.

But gas/energy and food prices will be impossible to spin. The Senate and House races, and state races, will begin to raise the question of the failure of liberal economic policies. Obama will finally have to defend his 4th consecutive year of trillion $ deficits, his crony capitalism, his defunding of poor schoolchildren in DC to subsidize purchases of the Crony Volt by rich people, his executive branch overreaches, the Senate's willfull breaking of laws to pass a yearly budget...if he tries to run against Congress, he'll have to explain how the Democrat-controlled Senate kept him from getting everything he wanted...and explain how what he did get was such a complete failure.

Once he begins to stink of failure, the left-leaning media will pile on Obama, in order to try and preserve the viability of liberal socio-economic principles...but it may be too little, too late.

It will be interesting to see the fall-out from the Democrats' massive election failures this coming year: exactly how much credibility will the mainstream news media lose? How will it affect future campaigns? How will it affect party identification in the future? What changes will Democrats make to try and ensure survival? Will they double down on special interests or allow a trickle of fiscal sanity to enter their ideology? I'm betting the former, but that should demonstrate diminishing returns fairly rapidly...

Maybe it's because he served 12 years in Washington, or maybe it's just his nature, but Santorum strikes me as the epitome of the Modern Ruling Class: someone who wants to use the power of government to run other people's lives for them.

Call me crazy but I think Obama just came out with this decision on mandatory insurance coverage of contraception and abortifacients because he wants to enable the rise of Santorum. If he can get social issues back on the table and give more energy to a Santorum candidacy then he can ensure that he runs against a Social Conservative rather than a squishy one.

"It's interesting that you could see this trend in jurisprudence coming since at least the 1980s. As I remember, that's approximately when Ronald Dworkin popularized this view that judges reach correct ruling by applying what they consider to be the most moral/"just" interpretation of the law that is "reasonably" consistent with case law. Recently you even saw Judge Posner talking this way."

Click the link on the words I quoted there. It's a 1937 case. It's the most well-established interpretation of substantive due process there is, and during the Warren Court era, the time of Griswold, it was the interpretive approach associated with the conservative Justice Harlan.

Obama believes that he can win out on social issues. NBCCBSABCMSNBC will help him scare people on Santorum whereas if he had to run against Romney, he'd have to talk Keynesian economics all day long. He knows he less cover on that issue.

It shouldn't come as a surprise that a persons personal views affect their decision making. It shouldn't even come as a surprise that a politician or judge's personal views affect their decision making. What we have to decide as voters is how close a politician's personal views come to our own personal views, or at a minimum clash the least. Views from the liberal left have been affecting government decisions for a long time, and many of us are finding that the decisions made by them are causing tremendous problems and hampering our freedoms. Those of us who feel that way are far less threatened by the right than the left.

And, on a side note, it's kind of nice to hear conservative ideas expressed openly, even when they're later watered down. Presidential politics has the effect of making it's practitioners into mealy mouthed weasels. We shouldn't be surprised when the last men standing are exactly that.

@hawkeyedjb,I tend to agree with you, but I'd vote for a syphilitic camel before I'd vote to give President Obama a 2nd chance at destroying the foundations of liberty and the American Dream.

Also, I'm banking on a conservative/Tea Party wave in Congress that will stand up for Congressional Overreach more.

And no matter what, any fool can see that the media will stir up opposition to a GOP POTUS overreach, but will do anything/everything it can to support Democratic overreach in any/all spheres of govt, so liberty is far, far safer with GOP in power than Democrats/liberals.

But birth control isn't really used for health purposes, and many women don't like their current form of contraception or their choices. There are many forms of NFP, that get passed off as junk science unfortunately.

I've been having some discussions with people online, and while we disagree there is an argument against birth control. Is it really a good idea to suppress ovulation and menstruation as good health? If a woman's cycle is not properly functioning, let's explore better ways to treat her reproductive health.

Now there have been advances in NFP, but once a woman learns the method she is no longer a CONSUMER to for the Pill, IUD, or sterilization.

"New Natural Family Planning Method Appeals To Wide Range Of Women"

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/03/080318104225.htm

"In the new study, the most common reason study participants gave for choosing the Standard Days Method was that it "does not have side affects nor affect women's health". Participants also noted the low costs of CycleBeads. Although natural family planning methods are frequently associated with religious beliefs, relatively few women gave this reason for selecting the method."

" The irony is that these women are provided a medication that enables freedom from reproductive worries but these same women are not provided information that there are significant adverse sexual effects that may ensue."Agents that interfere with the hormonal milieu of women may adversely affect their sexual lives.""

Mom, Santorum's pontificating on random citizens' private decisions reminds me of your post about the police officer who recommended that women not wear certain types of dresses. You wrote:

"You'd think by now the cops would have figured out how to broach this touchy subject. Look at this response from the woman quoted at the first link: 'I can't wear shorts? Besides the fact that I wasn't wearing anything that was inappropriate or provocative…. I don't think that should be part of the problem. At all.' Of course, she's right, but the annals of crime are full of innocent victims. The cops would like to encourage people to defend against crime, but advice from an authority figure feels like a restriction of your freedom... which the police know and use to control people."

Opposing birth control, saying that it is bad for women is absolutely insane and terrible politics to boot. Running a religious right wing social conservative candidate would be a really stupid thing for the GOP to do. The GOP needs to push fiscal conservatism, not social/religious conservatism.

It would be great if the religious right wing would admit that the real reason they can't stand Romney is because he is Mormon.

Hopefully anyone in power would hold all sorts of opinions that he wouldn't then seek to enshrine in law. Wouldn't that be the normal thing?

Yeah, that would be normal. But we're not talking about "normal," we're talking about Santorum, and he isn't normal. He has a strange fixation on other people's sexual behaviors. If he's going to talk so much about contraception in a public, political capacity, people are going to see it as reflecting his views on legislation. And in fact, he's been clear that he does think his personal views on sexual morality are an appropriate basis for criminalizing sex acts between consenting adults. He go ahead and claim that his personal views don't affect his views on what the law should be, but I've seen enough evidence to the contrary that I simply don't believe him about that.

I would be interested in knowing how many of the people who are stretching to construe Santorum's comments as being irrelevant to how he'd act as president also took umbrage when Jimmy Carter suggested that people might want to wear sweaters indoors when it's cold.

John Althouse Cohen said...He has a strange fixation on other people's sexual behaviors. If he's going to talk so much about contraception in a public, political capacity, people are going to see it as reflecting his views on legislation.

But of course the President of the United States (flanked by the HHS Secretary) talking about birth control on live television is not any sort of "fixation" on people's sexual behaviors.

He has a strange fixation on other people's sexual behaviors. If he's going to talk so much about contraception in a public,

Who can avoid it these days? Everyone wants to know what politicians think about contraception. Patti Murphy told us just this week that Republicans against free contraception are "waging a war on women".

A lot of us wingers are definitely up in arms about Romneycare--you should come out of your cave more often.

But if your complaint is that not enough outrage is applied specifically to the contraception angle to Romneycare, well my answer is that I am not sure I owe you the obligation of being against Romney for the reasons you approve of. I'm against him. I don't care to take the time to catalog all my reasons for you.

"Opposing birth control, saying that it is bad for women is absolutely insane and terrible politics to boot. "

Not insane, but I agree terrible for politics.

Contraception is so normalized, we rarely think about what it actually does and the pharmaceutical companies want it that way. No I won't poison my ovaries with synthetic chemicals, or put an IUD in my uterus, or scar my fallopian tubes with metal coils. I hope in 100 years we look back at contraception and shake our heads.

Nathan Alexander, he was in favor of such laws before the United States Supreme Court held them to be unconstitutional in the split opinion in Lawrence v. Texas. Since that case was decided, he lost that power. But those are still his views, and we're talking about whether he should be president for 4 or even 8 years and have the power to appoint new Supreme Court Justices. If you're interested in looking up more information, you can Google his views on this. The information is in his Wikipedia entry. Please spare me the pseudo-psychoanalysis about how I'm using "fear" and not "evidence."

If this becomes an issue, then it raises the question: are we saying a faithful Catholic cannot be elected President?

It used to be that saying one was "personally opposed to abortion but" was enough to soothe the tender feelings of those who would otherwise be alarmed about a faithful Catholic seeking election; so now even that won't cut it on contraception?

Glenn Reynolds--or someone he's drawing the idea from--has proposed the term "battlespace preparation"; and I think that's what is going on here.

With both Santorum and Romney, you can see how stories are being stirred up in the media to prepare for a lot of focus on what's "weird" about them. Romney? His church baptizes dead people by proxy. Santorum: he actually thinks contraceptives are bad!

So how about this: what if in the debates, all the candidates--including Obama--were subjected to a series of questions about what's most weird about their religious views? And to be fair, a lib gets to ask Santorum or Romney; and a conservative gets to ask Obama?

"No, moron, GOP enraged when Commissar Sibelius and the Messiah expect churches to toss their doctrine in the name of government compliance."

That's exactly what Romneycare did in Massachussetts. That's what 27 other states currently do. And 8 of them (including Massachussetts) do not allow an exemption for Catholic charities, hospitals or universities, like Obama does.

There are two people running for President who instituted this policy. Why is the outrage directed at only one of them?

It is, of course, one of the great triumphs of modern liberal discourse that they represent themselves as the standard bearers of sexual freedom.

The liberals will stand behind a woman's right to obtain contraceptives to the very end. Now, if you're a man, and if you ask that woman, while in an office environment, if she'd like to make use of those contraceptives after a dinner out tonight, all sorts of liberal inspired hell will break loose.

The reason that there is a group of feminists who self-identify as "sex positive" is because there are so many feminists who seemingly aren't.

@John Althouse Cohen,Unless you are a female currently in fertile years, it is obvious that your objection to Santorum's comment about contraception indicates that you are even more overly concerned with other peoples' sexual activities.

Or discussion about never to trust a man's condom because you don't know where it came from, how old it is, and where's its been?

What's funny to me is, now all these men are acting benevolent about getting all women free birth control. Of course, this will allow them to have sex with any woman without having to use condoms, so it benefits the men. But let's pretend those are the guys who are soooo against "controlling women's bodies".

One of the things that bothers me here is that there seems to be a confusion between personal choice and government intervention.

Not being Roman Catholic, I don't see the fine lines about birth control, and mostly don't see early term abortion all that evil.

But, what Santorum was being hit for here was not his views on abortion and birth control, per se, but rather, whether the rest of us should be paying for it.

As someone pointed out the other day, there are two reasons to have sex - recreation and procreation, and birth control and almost all abortions are about the former, while preventing the later.

So, why are we, then, as a people, paying for other people's birth control and abortions, so that they can have recreational sex?

I think that an argument can be made that it isn't for the sake of women's health. After all, abstinence would most likely be much better for women's health. No STDs, pill side effects, complications from abortions, etc.

But according to evolutionary biologists women on the pill are less attractive to men, supression of the female reproductive system prevents natural cues women give off. On the Pill, wome show signs that they are sexually unhealthy and weak. A few years ago, there was a study that strippers made more money on days of peak fertility/ovulation. Women are commonly disqualified in sexual studies, if on the Pill.

BTW - from my last post - I don't claim to abstinence outside of marriage. And, I don't condemn others who also do not abstain outside of marriage. I am far more fiscally conservative than I am socially conservative. And, that is where I was coming from.

It is amazing to me that we live in a society where they won't let a kid eat a lunch packed by his mother because it does not have carrots in it but that resists and condemns any effort to espouse the health benefits of abstinance and the detrimental health and societal effects of sex outside of marriage, especially by minors. STDs,risks and side effects of birth control pills, condoms that break, risks and side effects of abortions, children born into poverty, etc. are real risks and detriments. The statistics overwhelmingly show that children born into two parent adult familites do much better than children who are born into single parent families where the single parent is young woman who has only a high school degree or less. The benefits of abstinance is no STDs, no birth control side effects, no abortions, no self-esteem issues from being uses, etc. but you can't teach those benefits. At least Santorum has the guts to raise the issue, but he will be shouted down.

I am old enough now (35) that I have known people go through much of their adult lives. Many of the women who have had the roughest lives are those who are....is there a PC way to say this?....the sluttyest. Those that have had the most one-night stands (and sought them out) and have the most liberal views about sex. These are the women with herpes (I know one very liberal girl where her and both of her sisters have herpes), single mothers, divorces. Some wonder why they are 45 years old and single. Not exactly the fairy tale life they thought they would have when they were youngsters.

Rubin's point about Santorum's electibility is well taken. Santorum is a strong social conservative with big government or fiscally liberal tendencies. Romney is a fiscal conservative with a history of flexibility on the social issues. If Santorum is the nominee, the election is going to be all about the social issues (abortion, contraceptives, gay marriage, religious freedom, etc.) with economic issues taking a back seat. Romney flips that formula. The question is if the 10% of squishy moderates in the swing states are more likely to be drawn to the fiscal conservative or the social conservative.

If you're struggling with the right strategic choice, consider that Daily Kos is urging its members to vote for Santorum in all open primaries.

The CDC reported in 2009 that contraception use wasn’t exactly lacking: “Contraceptive use in the United States is virtually universal among women of reproductive age: 99 percent of all women who had ever had intercourse had used at least one contraceptive method in their lifetime.” Of all the reasons for non-use of contraception in cases of unwanted pregnancy, lack of access doesn’t even make the CDC’s list;

Gee, given that access to birth control is a non-issue, why could the left possibly be pushing this?

“With vasectomies, you may have a point, and I'm sure Santorum, et al. would be against medical coverage as well, but the reason to cover ED lies in the word dysfunction.

Female bodies that can't get pregnant are dysfunctional, not the ones who can.

And peckers who can't stay straight are "dysfunctional", and thus in need of medical intervention.

If one uses the now functional unit "procreationally" or "recreationally" is not a question of coverage.”

Well, people like Santorum and the bishops are arguing against contraception because it goes against their religious beliefs. If, from a religious standpoint, God has given you a condition that prevents you from having an erection and procreating, should man interfere?

There also appears to be non-contraceptive benefits of birth control pills:

“Are you asking if Obama has mandated these be covered, and covered with no out of pocket expense? The answer is no. Men's health is not an important issue.”

Men’s health is not an important issue? Really? As a man, I disagree.

“Are you asking if employers can choose to cover it if their employees want it? Yes, they can. They are not banned from doing so.”

In the kerfuffle about contraception, I’ve seen in this discussion about how providing birth control pills will lead to more “recreational” sex. I haven’t seen much about how vasectomies and drugs that treat erectile dysfunction lead to more “recreational” sex.

"... Is Viagra and other drugs that treat erectile dysfunction covered by these insurance policies?.."

In most cases yes and are just one of a long list of items that should not be covered by insurance. So when health insurance premiums keep rising everyone starts bitching while at the same time demand insurance pay for more stuff.

If, from a religious standpoint, God has given you a condition that prevents you from having an erection and procreating, should man interfere?

I'm sorry, but Jesus, Mary, & fuckin Joseph, that's dumb!

No Christian sect except Christian Scientists have a problem with medicine.

The world is a place damaged by sin, original & otherwise, and man's reason can cooperate with God's grace to fix it up. Medicine is one of those "cooperations", which is why one of the cardinal acts of charity is to minister to the sick.

We Catholics may believe some strange things, but please don't go making stuff up to add to the pile!

In the kerfuffle about contraception, I’ve seen in this discussion about how providing birth control pills will lead to more “recreational” sex. I haven’t seen much about how vasectomies and drugs that treat erectile dysfunction lead to more “recreational” sex.

Well, erectile dysfunction keeps both recreational and procreational sex from occurring. So I'm not sure that's a great point.But.The kerfuffle isn't about birth control pills being "provided". It is about:1- Pills and procedures (on women, not vasectomies) are being mandated by the Federal government to be covered with zero copay, to the extent that it will be illegal for every citizen NOT to own such a policy and 2- Several churches do not believe in birth control in general and more do not believe in abortifacients. They do not want to have to use their money to pay for policies that cover these items.

I'm sure the Catholic Church would balk at being forced to pay for vasectomies, but they aren't being forced to. Nobody is.

Speaking of controlling women's bodies, the Marxist Statists are watching that baby producing group very closely.

I predict that as soon as nano digital implants advances are ready, women's ovaries and the wombs will be implanted with controls that allow the State's one child, or no child, policies to be mandated by command from outside.

It's called Birth Control. And it can be seen as kind compared to older Malthusian methods of crop failure starvation and designer plagues.

The controller's goals seem to be to inherit a clean earth once the current mass population has been re-set to 5% of today's numbers.

No Christian sect except Christian Scientists have a problem with medicine.

The world is a place damaged by sin, original & otherwise, and man's reason can cooperate with God's grace to fix it up. Medicine is one of those "cooperations", which is why one of the cardinal acts of charity is to minister to the sick.

We Catholics may believe some strange things, but please don't go making stuff up to add to the pile!”

Well, again Catholics are against birth control pills because it interferes with a natural process. If, by nature, a man is suffering from erectile dysfunction, should we interfere? I mean erectile dysfunction isn’t a life threaten condition, correct?

It just seems like the focus is always on the women and what they do with their bodies.

Also, not everyone believes in the Catholic restriction against birth control. I personally know a woman who is prescribed birth control pills by her doctor for the treatment of Endometriosis. Why, if she worked in a Catholic institution, should she be denied that treatment because of her employer’s religious beliefs? She’s a devote Catholic by the way.

To be clear here: 36fsfiend's schtick is to try to point out what he believes are inconsistencies between Christian teaching and practice. For example, he believes that according to the book of Matthew it is hypocritical for Christians to pray in churches. He doesn't seem to be hung up on much else. I asked him the other day if he hated Santorum and he said no, so it's not that.

I see the attempt made here to distinguish his personal views from what he would actually do as president.

If that standard is to be upheld for Santorum, though, it would require incredible forebearance on the part of the Democrats who would be cutting ads for the general election. In other words, not gonna happen.

His strange and bordering-on-creepy views about sex, women, contraception, gays are more objectionable to me as a social liberal than those of other social conservatives (such as, for instance, Romney), precisely because they seem to come from a dark place in his soul where all these women and gay men gettin' it on just roils him and makes him ill.

Most social conservative politicians are just repeating what their constituents want to hear. I don't mind that. I also don't mind people echoing the traditional values they grew up with. I'll fight them on the policies, but I think their positions are spiritually based, not psychologically based. Or are poll-driven. Again, fine. Santorum is not fine. He's itchy on the subject.

Jennifer Rubin, yeah, she's in the bag for Romney. But that doesn't make her observations on Santorum wrong.

@bgates,Good point. The electoral always has the choice for what they feel is acceptable or not in/as a candidate.

But it is always worthwhile to point out that if an entire voting block is deciding to reject someone on the basis of religion alone, they are bigots who are going against the values of the United States as expressed in the US Constitution.

And that goes whether the person at issue is a Catholic, Mormon, Atheist, or Liberation Theologist.

Whether the listener finds that line of argument persuasive is another issue...but doesn't actually violate the US Constitution.

“Well, erectile dysfunction keeps both recreational and procreational sex from occurring. So I'm not sure that's a great point.”

I think it is a perfectly valid point if one is going to argue against contraceptives because they may lead to "recreational" sex.

“The kerfuffle isn't about birth control pills being "provided". It is about: 1- Pills and procedures (on women, not vasectomies) are being mandated by the Federal government to be covered with zero copay, to the extent that it will be illegal for every citizen NOT to own such a policy and 2- Several churches do not believe in birth control in general and more do not believe in abortifacients. They do not want to have to use their money to pay for policies that cover these items.

I'm sure the Catholic Church would balk at being forced to pay for vasectomies, but they aren't being forced to. Nobody is.”

Well, as I commented in an early thread on this topic, I believe if a religious institution is going to get involved in a business in the public sector, they have to be prepared to comply with any and all federal laws. These instructions aren’t being forced to served the public so I don’t agree with the premise that their religious freedoms are being violated. Not everyone working in these intuitions are members of the faith involved and, as such, they should not be denied the benefits of a federal law if they desire to take advantage of those benefits.

John Stodder:because they seem to come from a dark place in his soul where all these women and gay men gettin' it on just roils him and makes him ill.

I don't agree with Santorum on a whole host of things, but I think this is unfair.If women aren't gettin' it on, neither are men. Straight men. His opinion, I believe, is that people of both genders must practice self control when it comes to sex.

JohnWhat's darker forcing taxpayers to pay for other people's icky sex practices or thinking they're icky in the first place?Shouldn't people just keep their icky sex practices to themselves, including paying for them.

Considering the fact that those men are dead, they're past the point of caring.

Apparently my point was not well made.Althouse said civilization has always been about controlling women's bodies. But civilization has been built on the bodies of men who have been brought into wars (not to mention back-breaking labor). I don't agree women's bodies have been singled out for control.

“36fs- Catholics are not against medical treatment. That's why they run hospitals. And they are not against bc pills for medical treatment. Insurance would cover that.

I'm starting to think you haven't read anything about this issue.”

Catholics are against abortion and contraception which, the last time I checked, are both legal in this country. If they don’t want to provide these services to the general public, then get out of institutions that serve the general public. Otherwise, comply with federal laws.

Additionally, recent proposed legislation is attempting to allow any employer, not just religious organizations, to deny insurance coverage for procedures that are against their religious beliefs. I haven’t seen anything in this proposed legislation regarding an exemption for birth control pills for non-contraceptive benefits.

But I’m not a believer in birth control and — artificial birth control — again, I think it goes down the line of being able to do whatever you want to do without having the responsibility that comes with that

Isn't it odd that in Ricky's world, the decision to use birth control is a sign of not taking "responsibility?"

Catholics are against abortion and contraception which, the last time I checked, are both legal in this country. If they don’t want to provide these services to the general public,

So do you believe you should be forced to spend your own money on anything the government says you should, as long as that thing is legal?

I have to say I find this "then get out of the hospital-running business" answer quite puzzling. Is the problem that there are just too many hospitals, too many soup kitchens, too many inexpensive private schools, and we just need to start weeding them out?

36fsfiend wrote: People can afford to own a home without writing off mortgage interest on their taxes, correct? But if for some reason they were denied this federal benefit, we would certainly hear about it.

You are hearing about it--from me. Try getting very close to paying off a mortgage. I'm paying more in taxes than ever. This is why I say that if the 47% ers paid more Federal taxes, they'd expect less.

“36fsfiend wrote: If they don’t want to provide these services to the general public, then get out of institutions that serve the general public. Otherwise, comply with federal laws.

Can I get a beer at church? Or maybe quaff the extra wine?

Plenty of vendors and service providers don't offer a full panoply of what is "legal."

It's is their choice.”

If a church wants to impose restriction on its own flock in its own facilities, then I say go for it. That’s their own business. But in this case, they want to oppose their restrictions on non-members in intuitions that serve the public. I don’t agree.

Regarding the point that plenty of vendors and service providers don’t offer what is “legal” can you cite some examples of these businesses that are violating federal laws?

If a church wants to impose restriction on its own flock in its own facilities, then I say go for it. That’s their own business. But in this case, they want to oppose their restrictions on non-members in intuitions that serve the public.

Alternatively,if this "benefit" is so important to you, you don't have to work at a Catholic institution.

“So do you believe you should be forced to spend your own money on anything the government says you should, as long as that thing is legal?”

Well, I may not believe in war but my taxes go to support the military, correct? There’s no deduction on a tax return for those who don’t support a war, correct?

“I have to say I find this "then get out of the hospital-running business" answer quite puzzling. Is the problem that there are just too many hospitals, too many soup kitchens, too many inexpensive private schools, and we just need to start weeding them out?”

The problem is having a religious organization providing a service to the public dictating what laws they will or will not follow. Again, no one is forcing these institutions to enter the public sector. If they do so, they need to be prepared to follow any and all public laws.

“You are hearing about it--from me. Try getting very close to paying off a mortgage. I'm paying more in taxes than ever. This is why I say that if the 47% ers paid more Federal taxes, they'd expect less.”

A problem for me is that the wrong people are saying he absolutely can't be President. And it's the same people, coincidently, who said Palin couldn't be President, or Gingrich, or Bachmann, etc. They make up their "christianist" fantasies about the coming persecution and act like Santorum is the next Hitler. It's as hysterical as thinking Obama is Stalin.

So 36 can I assume from your reply that we should just get rid of the seperation of church and state part of the Constitution?

I only ask because I have not heard a single justification as to why birth control should not be the responsibility of the individual rather than the health insurer nor a single reason why it should be mandated coverage.

Birth control or ED medicine is about as much a health issue as breast augmentation or penile implants.

You don't know much about fixed mortgages? At the end of the term the payment is mostly principal meaning that yes, you have significantly less to deduct. This a perverse incentive for people to stay over mortgaged or, I suppose, to seek other shelters.

In the Atlantic 15 years ago, there was a provocative cover article by cancer researcher named Plotkin who attributed the rise in women's breast cancer rates to delayed childbirth, meaning that their bodies are bathed hormones far more often than in the past.

As I recall, there was outrage in the feminist community over his heartlessness, but of course he was reporting his decades of scientific findings.

I guess I wonder why there is any support for a law that mandates free birth control. I suppose for those who believe there is no such thing as too much government intervention this might be the case but I suspect for most supporters, this is just a cool way to spit on Catholics.

"The problem is having a religious organization providing a service to the public dictating what laws they will or will not follow. Again, no one is forcing these institutions to enter the public sector. If they do so, they need to be prepared to follow any and all public laws."And around we go.Should such laws be made. That is the question we're all dancing around is it not?

“So 36 can I assume from your reply that we should just get rid of the seperation of church and state part of the Constitution?

I only ask because I have not heard a single justification as to why birth control should not be the responsibility of the individual rather than the health insurer nor a single reason why it should be mandated coverage.

Birth control or ED medicine is about as much a health issue as breast augmentation or penile implants.”

I’m all for the separation of church and state. That’s the jist of my argument. I don’t want a religious institution that serves the public dictating which federal laws it will or will not follow. If they can’t accommodate the beliefs of all individuals in the public sector, then they need to remain private. In which case they can certainly request exemptions from laws that goes against their beliefs.

"You don't know much about fixed mortgages? At the end of the term the payment is mostly principal meaning that yes, you have significantly less to deduct. This a perverse incentive for people to stay over mortgaged or, I suppose, to seek other shelters."

I'll ask the question again. Have you been denied a benefit provided by a federal law?

"The problem is having a religious organization providing a service to the public dictating what laws they will or will not follow. Again, no one is forcing these institutions to enter the public sector. If they do so, they need to be prepared to follow any and all public laws." And around we go. Should such laws be made. That is the question we're all dancing around is it not?”

Well, that’s up to the American people. The health care law was passed by Congress and signed by the President.

If the polls are correct, and a majority of the people, including Catholics, support this rule and they communicate their desires to their representatives in Congress, who should the reps. listen to, their constituents or the bishops who answer not to their follower but an authority in Rome?

So let me get this straight: the Obama administration is willing to risk driving Catholic charities out of the public sector over a demand that Catholics pay for a woman's preferred birth control method? That, according to 36fsfiend, this is perfectly acceptable, and if Catholics have an issue, then they must stay in their own little island away from the general public just because a few Democrats forced through a power grab? That if the creeping tentacles of government Leviathan touch anything, you must succumb or flee? What a horrific vision.

I've never really understood the attraction of being part of the Borg. I guess it's their health plan.

“Your money. Out of your pocket. Not even money the government has collected and used for their budgets.

Or have we gotten to the point that because the government can collect taxes, they can now direct our own personal spending as well? Because that's what I'm afraid of.”

The government directs our spending all the time. For example, there are a multitude of rules and requirements regarding the training and qualifications of flight crews and maintenance personnel for the airlines. There are numerous safety requirements dictated by the FAA for aircraft, airports, instrument procedures, weather collection and reporting and so forth. Who do you think ultimately pays the costs of these requirements?

Actually, I wonder why birth control is a government sponsored protocol at all. Should birth control in total be an individual decision that is made by the individual? Why is the government involved at all in contraception?

I'm not even talking about abortion. Just the thought the government is in the business of doling out contraception is absurd. Even on the state or local level.

"...The government directs our spending all the time. For example, there are a multitude of rules and requirements regarding the training and qualifications of flight crews and maintenance personnel for the airlines. There are numerous safety requirements dictated by the FAA for aircraft, airports, instrument procedures, weather collection and reporting and so forth. Who do you think ultimately pays the costs of these requirements?...."

Ok so you're equating the cost benefits of government regulation for airline safety with the government mandating that birth control be provided by health insurers.

Because I think most people see the costs of those airline as a necessity and prudent use of government power. Whereas I would hope that most people would see goverment mandates for birth control a ridiculous use of goverment power.

So let me get this straight: the Obama administration is willing to risk driving Catholic charities out of the public sector over a demand that Catholics pay for a woman's preferred birth control method? That, according to 36fsfiend, this is perfectly acceptable, and if Catholics have an issue, then they must stay in their own little island away from the general public just because a few Democrats forced through a power grab? That if the creeping tentacles of government Leviathan touch anything, you must succumb or flee? What a horrific vision.

I've never really understood the attraction of being part of the Borg. I guess it's their health plan.”

I don’t think the Church will be driven out of the public sector. Too much money to be made.

For example, the Eternal Word Television Network, founded by Mother Angelica, made over $47 million last year, all tax free.

The government should just leave its citizens' vaginas, penises, uteruses and testicles alone. Our genetalia are none of the government's business, unless they cause a crime, or a crime is caused upon them.

Seriously, the government doesn't fret over our eyeballs, toenails, pancreases, follicles or livers; why fret about the parts that have sex?

Our governmnet is a pervert. If the guy down the street was as interested in my wife's vagina as is the government, he and I would have words, maybe more.

Leave us tend to our own bodies in accordance with our beliefs. We own them, the government doesn't.

You stated “Plenty of vendors and service providers don't offer a full panoply of what is "legal."

There is no mandate from the government to provide beer at concerts or schools.

Again, do you have an example of a business that is not providing something required by law?

“And I'm glad you changed your mind about prayers in churches being hypocritical. That's not what you wrote the other night.”

I haven’t changed my mind about prayers in church. I was simply asking why Christians don’t appear to follow the words of Christ as stated in Matthew6:5-6:8. I never really did get a clear answer so the question remains.

“Ok so you're equating the cost benefits of government regulation for airline safety with the government mandating that birth control be provided by health insurers.

Because I think most people see the costs of those airline as a necessity and prudent use of government power. Whereas I would hope that most people would see goverment mandates for birth control a ridiculous use of goverment power.”

Hoosier Daddy,

I’m not a woman, so I will not presuppose that mandating birth control is any more ridiculous than mandating any other medical procedure or medicine. However, if the recent polls are accurate, a majority of woman support this new rule, including Catholics. Indeed, data indicates 98 percent of Catholic women have used birth control.

Well I'm not a woman either but I still find it ridiculous that it requires a Federal mandate to ensure a woman doesn't have to pay $10 a month so she can have sex without the worry of becoming pregnant.

There was a time when teenagers and even grownups actually bought that stuff on their own. How did they ever manage?

“Fiend wrote: None so far. The taxpayers were very generous to me while I was in the service and I greatly appreciate that.

Yes, we are a generous people. You should stop demanding more for others. And thank you for your service.”

Chickenlittle,

My big concern with this issue is we have a religious institution dictating what laws it will or will not follow in the public sector. Again, they are not being forced into the public sector, it's voluntary so this complaint about their religious freedom being violated in my opinion is without merit.

If they want to stay private, then can have all the exemptions they want unless they are hurting someone.

But if they are serving the public they should be prepare to follow any and all public laws.

Well I'm not a woman either but I still find it ridiculous that it requires a Federal mandate to ensure a woman doesn't have to pay $10 a month so she can have sex without the worry of becoming pregnant.

Hey, if she turns around and votes Democratic out gratitude its reall purpose will have been served.

“Well I'm not a woman either but I still find it ridiculous that it requires a Federal mandate to ensure a woman doesn't have to pay $10 a month so she can have sex without the worry of becoming pregnant.

There was a time when teenagers and even grownups actually bought that stuff on their own. How did they ever manage?”

Hoosier Daddy,

I’m looking at it from the position that contraceptives are legal drugs and should be treated just as any other legal drug. Again, if a religious institution serving in the public sector has issues with following a rule and their noncompliance of the rule impacts individual who do not belong to that faith then that’s an issue of separation of church and state in my opinion.

But if they are serving the public they should be prepare to follow any and all public laws.

Abortion is legal. If the Obama administration passes a rule tomorrow that the public law will be to provide abortion services, must the Catholic hospitals do so? (That's actually far more relevant to your position that what Catholics must provide for their employees which has little to do with their serving the public.)

“Well I'm not a woman either but I still find it ridiculous that it requires a Federal mandate to ensure a woman doesn't have to pay $10 a month so she can have sex without the worry of becoming pregnant.

Hey, if she turns around and votes Democratic out gratitude its reall purpose will have been served.”

Well, again, if the recent polls are to be believed, a majority of women, including Catholic women, are in favor of this rule. I don’t know if they are all Democrats, but I doubt it.

You know, back in the 1960s and 1970s, Catholic women would have 5, 6, 7 or even 12 children. You don’t see that today – 2 or 3 children at most. Do you really think millions of Catholic women are completely abstaining from sex?

It’s not just about having recreational sex. It has a lot to do with economics and supporting a family.

Oh, and Matthew 6: 5-6 isn't that hard to understand when considered in the light of Matthew 5: 14-16. You're not supposed to hide who you are; you're simply supposed to do it for God's approval, not to look pious in the eyes of other people. Praying boastfully is the mark of a hypocrite, but public prayer doesn't make you a hypocrite (affirming the consequent logic error there.)

Besides, given the road this thread has taken, I find it peculiar that the original concern was the influence Santorum's personal convictions might have on his governing style. The fact that it's shifted to a discussion of what Obama's convictions have had on his actual rules he's trying to force on people is rather more significant. Santorum's convictions are pretty much a boogeyman right now--Obama's are a threat.

But if they are serving the public they should be prepare to follow any and all public laws.

Abortion is legal. If the Obama administration passes a rule tomorrow that the public law will be to provide abortion services, must the Catholic hospitals do so? (That's actually far more relevant to your position that what Catholics must provide for their employees which has little to do with their serving the public.)”

Well, assuming the majority of the public is in agreement with a law mandating abortion, as they seem to be in this case with contraception, and if a doctor indicates an abortion is warranted, the Catholic hospital should comply if it is serving the public.

However, I don’t believe there will be a majority supporting a mandate on abortion given the controversy over that procedure. But in that case, the public, not a particular religious institution, is dictating the restriction, as it should be, regarding institutions that serve the public.

“Oh, and Matthew 6: 5-6 isn't that hard to understand when considered in the light of Matthew 5: 14-16. You're not supposed to hide who you are; you're simply supposed to do it for God's approval, not to look pious in the eyes of other people. Praying boastfully is the mark of a hypocrite, but public prayer doesn't make you a hypocrite (affirming the consequent logic error there.)”

To me there seems to be a conflation between prayer and public works. Preaching the gospels is not the same as prayer.

“Besides, given the road this thread has taken, I find it peculiar that the original concern was the influence Santorum's personal convictions might have on his governing style. The fact that it's shifted to a discussion of what Obama's convictions have had on his actual rules he's trying to force on people is rather more significant. Santorum's convictions are pretty much a boogeyman right now--Obama's are a threat.”

Regarding Santorum, and his personal convictions it’s interesting that back in 1960 Kennedy had to go out of his way to convince people that he wouldn’t be taking orders from the Vatican if he became president. Now, there doesn’t seem to be much concern with candidates taking their cues from the bishops who don’t answer to the American people, but to an authority in Rome.

"Rick Santorum...said birth control is 'harmful to women.'"It is harmful to women. Science can validate that conclusion. Many things are harmful to people, science can prove it. Yet, the government keeps right on supporting and even legislating things that are harmful to everyone. If the government stayed in it's appropriate role (as stated in the Constitution), people would get to evaluate the harm and choose a course of action independent of government and they would pay for it themselves. That is the way it should be. Government finds itself twisting in ever tighter knots because it's objective has become control,through social engineering instead of enabling freedom. The various paths this thread has taken show how complicated human beings are, and how insulting it is for government to set itself up as God.

“Actually, Catholics don't take cues from "Bishops" and Catholic doctrine is well established and widely known.”

Well, given the number of Catholic women who reportedly have used birth control, I would agree with the statement that Catholics don’t take cues from the bishops. In that case, why do Gingrich and Santorum as well some members of Congress seem to be listening to the bishops instead of the people of which a majority supports the rule on contraception?

“But of course Obama going around the country quoting the bible to justify higher taxes is just dandy.”

Obama doesn’t answer to Rome. Additional, in the same section of that speech, he also referenced the Jewish and Muslim concepts of helping the less fortunate. For some reason, folks are only focusing on the quote he made as a Christian.

“Rick Santorum...said birth control is 'harmful to women.'"It is harmful to women. Science can validate that conclusion. Many things are harmful to people, science can prove it. Yet, the government keeps right on supporting and even legislating things that are harmful to everyone.If the government stayed in it's appropriate role (as stated in the Constitution), people would get to evaluate the harm and choose a course of action independent of government and they would pay for it themselves. That is the way it should be.Government finds itself twisting in ever tighter knots because it's objective has become control,through social engineering instead of enabling freedom.The various paths this thread has taken show how complicated human beings are, and how insulting it is for government to set itself up as God.”

Birth control, like any other medicine has both good and bad effects. I’d rather take the advise from the medical community rather than from a politician regarding the benefits and side affects of a drug, especially when the politician has a religious agenda that conflicts with the purpose of the drug in question.

If the government doesn’t regulate the drug industry, who will? My family and I are not willing to be guinea pigs in a trial and error approach to medicine.

Wasn’t it Lincoln who said that the government should do for the people what the people cannot collectively do for themselves?

I think the Lincoln quote is, "The legitimate object of government, is to do for a community of people, whatever they need to have done, but can not do, at all, or can not, so well do, for themselves — in their separate, and individual capacities."

Deciding whether to pay for someone else's contraception doesn't seem to meet that standard. Heck, most of what the federal government sticks its nose into doesn't meet that standard. (But its military ventures do.)

let's face it; if the Reps choose Santorum we get another four years of Obama and his bad FISCAL policies. The Reps are silly to be focusing on social issues if they believe O is destroying this country. I used to believe that the religious right did not control the Reps but with this issue over BC and the actions of Rep governors restricting abortion rts rather than coming up with jobs programs I believe otherwise.

As a woman who is pro choice and pro-BC I feel blackmailed by both parties. Vote Rep and we'll improve the economy but we'll control what you do in the bedroom. Vote Obama and you can do what you want in the bedroom but we'll rise up the debt and keep you broke and give your money to the cronies who got us in office.

Here's a tangent: are there any methods of natural family planning that have the FDA stamp of approval? I know there are methods that use fertility monitors of various kinds (maybe only available in Europe, where they're more intersted in non-hormonal methods even without religious motivation), and it would be an interesting twist if an NFP user who ordinarily would just buy a new thermometer every now and again uses the FREE MONEY of Obamacare to buy a $200 gadget.

also, this "free" BC is not free -- it will be paid for in your massive monthly govt required health plan.This is just to get O votes because under him the economy sucks. Why are the Reps focusing on BC and abortion? Have they run out of ideas or want O to stay in office so he truly pays the price of his policies (I've heard that from some conservatives on various websites)

also free BC is limited BC. how many pharma companies are going to make top of the line birth control for nothing. Not all BC (esp pills) are the same and some women need different fomulations. the restrictions on BC from O-care can end up reducing or eliminating some BC pills

santorum has clearly stated that these are not just his personal musings but that "these are matters of PUBLIC POLICY interest".he believes that there is no such thing as a right to privacy and he is very concerned with what goes on in people's bedrooms. who, in their right mind, thinks that this will be a winning message in the general election?

“I think the Lincoln quote is, "The legitimate object of government, is to do for a community of people, whatever they need to have done, but can not do, at all, or can not, so well do, for themselves — in their separate, and individual capacities."

Deciding whether to pay for someone else's contraception doesn't seem to meet that standard. Heck, most of what the federal government sticks its nose into doesn't meet that standard. (But its military ventures do.)”

slarrow,

I was referring to wyo sis’s comment about the government not regulating the drug industry. I think the government should have a part in ensuring our drugs are safe.